that was interesting to watch. Rachel's lawyer admits she gets her words wrong sometimes.

And now we know unnamed persons were prepping her for her for her court appearance with respect to her clothing and what would happen, and were so concerned she didn't understand what court was about, they called in Vereen at the last minute. He said those people were not the state's attorney's office.

The end discussion about Rush was pretty irrelevant in my view to anything, but up until that, he does reveal some things.

Maybe not from the SA office but obviously working closely with them, otherwise how did they come into contact with her? Her identity was a closely guarded secret even though she was not even a minor.

The comments by W8/RJ’s lawyer are interesting, though he works hard to avoid being tied down to specifics. I have wondered why a “pro bono” lawyer/spokesman did not appear early in this case to represent W8/RJ. The face recognition on television alone should have been worth something to an aspiring lawyer in the greater Miami market.

I see it as a major systemic failure in this case that the testimony of W8/RJ was not locked down before the Affidavit of Probably Cause was signed. The snippets by Mr. Crump and BDLR did not come close to being adequate in my opinion. Such testimony would have a required a prolonged interview, most likely on video, to fully document her recollections. That would include a minute by minute discussion based on the cell phone records, as well as a lot of background information. As it was, her recollections would likely become more uncertain and intermingled in the time between the events and the court time.

Probably even more concerning is that prosecution made that choice early on, so they likely appreciated the weakness of her testimony, to the point of hiding her name and background even to the defense. Then the case dragged on for 16 months. At the trial, the critical witness who “connected the dots” was evidently found not credible by the jury.

Justice long deferred may be justice denied, but GZ and his family paid a heavy price for someone who was found not guilty of anything by a jury of his peers. The potential for tyranny from an abusive judicial system was quite apparent, as Mr. O’Mara opined.

One thing not cleared up in the trial was the early saga of Martin's cellphone. In the past, we heard a series of confusing statements as to why the last person on the phone with Martin, Rachel Jeantel, was not contacted by the police right away. First we heard that the police couldn't find a proper charger for the phone. Then Tracy Martin wouldn't supply a password unless he spoke first with his lawyer. I think both have denied this. Why the police couldn't see the phone records before Tracy Martin did is another mystery. The last juicy tidbit about the phone was in a hearing, out of the jury's earshot, on July 9. Richard Connor testified that there were mysterious (recoverable) deletions made of text messages on the phone and he hinted that, from their nature. the deletions might not have been done by Trayvon Martin, but when it was in police custody. If Zimmerman brings a malicious prosecution suit, I assume we will finally learn the much more of the story.

I don't think I understand your question, NMNM. The question is why the police didn't access Martin's phone records ASAP, not why Tracy could access them. I don't even know if they checked Zimmerman's to see if there was anything there that would contradict his story. I think Serino was wondering early on what information could be gleaned from TM's phone because he told that story about Martin videotaping everything to Zimmerman.

Then Tracy Martin wouldn't supply a password unless he spoke first with his lawyer. I think both have denied this.

Is "both" the police and Tracy, or is "both" Crump and Tracy? Either way, the police report says Tracy wouldn't give them the password, so unless there's strong evidence that wasn't true, I'll continue to believe it. Despite what you say, I don't think there's any real mystery why the police couldn't access TM's phone: it was locked with a pattern lock. If there's any mystery at all, it is, as nomatter_nevermind mentions, why they didn't subpoena the phone records earlier. Perhaps one reason is the police knew they would get more information from the the phone than from the phone records, and underestimated the difficulty and time it would take to get it.

Perhaps one reason is the police knew they would get more information from the the phone than from the phone records, and underestimated the difficulty and time it would take to get it.

I think the phone records would have included the information needed to access the phone. According to the police report, T-Mobile advised that they needed the phone number and the account pin number (17/184).

I think the phone records would have included the information needed to access the phone. According to the police report, T-Mobile advised that they needed the phone number and the account pin number (17/184).

ETA: It was the pin number that SPD requested from Tracy Martin.

I don't think the phone records would provide the information, but they could probably have used a court order to require the phone company to do whatever they would have done if they were given the PIN. That issue's a bit confusing to me though, since they apparently never could unlock the phone through the phone company; they used the Cellebrite device, along with the help from the California police expert, to finally get the information. I remember some reports about trying to unlock the phone by using the Google account, but, off hand, I can't recall the details. I believe it was unsuccessful.

Is "both" the police and Tracy, or is "both" Crump and Tracy? Either way, the police report says Tracy wouldn't give them the password, so unless there's strong evidence that wasn't true, I'll continue to believe it.

My recollection is that Tracy Martin denied both that the police had asked him for an account pin number and Tracy said he would have to first check with his lawyer. Crump denied Tracy ever asked him about the request. It could have come up in reply to a reporter's question at a news conference. I agree with Rachel Jeantel implication that being able to contact her immediately should have been something any competent investigator would have been able to do. That "we couldn't find a charger" story took the cake.P.S. What the heck is a pin number for a cell phone account?

My recollection is that Tracy Martin denied both that the police had asked him for an account pin number and Tracy said he would have to first check with his lawyer. Crump denied Tracy ever asked him about the request. It could have come up in reply to a reporter's question at a news conference. I agree with Rachel Jeantel implication that being able to contact her immediately should have been something any competent investigator would have been able to do. That "we couldn't find a charger" story took the cake.P.S. What the heck is a pin number for a cell phone account?

Did Tracy deny it before or after describing how he drove TM half way to Sanford? Did Crump deny it before or after filing a court document that said all the substantive discussions were included in his recording of his Jeantel interview? Or put more directly, I trust what either one of them says about as far as I can throw my head.